Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 August 8 August >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

♔ 07:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Jerry Frankel

Jerry Frankel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. Winning a game show tournament (even if it was the first) is not criteria that meets GNG. Contestants on Jeopardy! are rarely notable, usually only if they have set major records on the show, or they have transcended the show and become national news stories on their own. Frankel has done neither. Subject is included in List of Jeopardy! contestants
, but that does not mean this subject individually meets GNG.

Google search of subject does not provide any reliable source that meets GNG, and adding the word "Jeopardy" to search does not provide any other evidence this person meets GNG.

Only references are links to iMDB (see

AldezD (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
one event.--Launchballer 21:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jerry Frankel, I shouldn't edit Wikipedia whilst tired.--Launchballer 11:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled HBO Rock'n Roll Project

Untitled HBO Rock'n Roll Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable television pilot which recently began filming, not an upcoming series, as stated in the article. Many, many pilots never make it to series. This one doesn't even have a title yet.

WP:COPYVIO, but I have not checked the rest of the article.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Since it's going to air in 4 days time there's really not much deleting, If by October it'snot improved I suggest renomming. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Aur Uske Cousins

Nisha Aur Uske Cousins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming TV programme with no evidence of meeting

WP:GNG. I prodded but it was removed. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor flight dynamics

Tensor flight dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this topic is notable enough for inclusion. The bulk of the content of this article appears to be sourced only to papers by the creator of the article. (The additional references to prior works solely define the background concepts and do not discuss the topic of tensor flight dynamics.) The article reads like a review of the author's work without imparting any actual information about the topic. Kinu t/c 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Show Exhibitors Association

Trade Show Exhibitors Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non notable association which has now changed it's name. Unreferenced for 6 years. Fails

WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles related to socialist cults of personality

Titles related to socialist cults of personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is

WP:GNG. I can't find any references that specifically discuss titles related to socialist leaders of personality. The whole thing seems to be a case of original research. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect as no reliable sourcing could be found to pass

Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comic and Curious Cats

Comic and Curious Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NBOOK and completely unsourced. Couldn't find any significant coverage on it LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far I'm not finding a huge amount, but I am finding a bit that suggests more coverage in that some books about Carter tend to list it as a highlight of her work. I am finding some mild use of it in classrooms, but not enough to really make a big difference in notability. It looks like if there is more coverage, it never got uploaded onto the Internet. Most of what I'm finding mentions it in relation to Carter, so if all else fails I'd suggest redirecting this to her bibliography section.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree to to the redirect LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Mercurio

Massimo Mercurio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author apparently got impatient waiting for an AfD AfC review, I'm unable to find, and the article doesn't provide, sources to references which would evidence notability under our general notability guideline. There may very well be such sources, of course, language barriers may be at issue. j⚛e deckertalk 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 19:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find Bearcat's arguments to be the most persuasive given the current state of the article. No prejudice to recreation if there are reliable sources asserting a substantive claim of notability are included; if any re-creation fails that standard, it can be deleted per

CSD G4. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Dorothy Baden-Powell

Dorothy Baden-Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person whose only substantive claim of encyclopedic

reliable sources, could be added, but Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate the publication of genealogy research. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if the article had been citing any actual
reliable sources
to demonstrate her notability as a writer, ....
How about these reviews ? RobinClay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.com/ss/customer-reviews/0709167482/ref=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer?_encoding=UTF8&k=Pimpernel%20Gold&ref_=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer&showViewpoints=1 ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0709077157/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
Amazon reviews are not
notability at all. We don't keep an article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sources as evidence that their books exist — you have to show media coverage which demonstrates that independent reliable sources paid attention to her writing career. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
.... then I'd have left it alone. But if the article as written is sourced only to a genealogy chart, then the family relationship itself is the only claim of notability we can assess on the basis of the sourcing at hand. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing about her writing beefs up a ton, but not as long as it relies exclusively on
primary sources like this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morino

Tom Morino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, but neither of these positions entitle a person to keep an unsourced article on Wikipedia under 2014-vintage content standards. Delete if the sourcing can't be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Edgly

Raven Edgly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible

hoax. No indication that the subject even exists, let alone has the claimed acting credentials. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as a likely hoax. There are no reliable sources to back up the assertion that the subject of this article has done anything more than possibly community theatre. EricSerge (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as confirmed hoax. The image "Raven Edgly in Titus Andronicus" on the page is that of English actress Flora Spencer-Longhurst. That along with the mention of "Anna Rexic" (Anorexic) confirms this as a hoax  NQ  talk 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Email Company

Global Email Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable defunct email spam company. damiens.rf 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 19:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kao

Ken Kao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP about non-notable person. damiens.rf 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Horse

Flying Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article that is either an hoax or a badly written advertisement. damiens.rf 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Despite the vocal protest of two editors, they have failed to show how/why this passes any of our notability criteria, whereas the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based.

WP:NPA. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Dave vonKleist

Dave vonKleist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After finding quite a bit of copyvio in this article from [1] I tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it. The only clearly reliable sources I found was a book at [2] which mentions him in connection with the documentary 911:In Plane Site but doesn't tell us very much about him. Seems to fail our notability criteria.

talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such as
talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So that earns the article an additional !vote for delete per WP:BLP. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm taking the unusual step of posting someone else's work here in the Deletion Discussion forum for a particular reason. Mainly because another member here has said that it lacks the notability and I think that I may have picked up on something.
    QUOTE WegianWarrior Delete as non-notable - while prolific among the fringe, little to no mention in reliable sources. WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:GNG and WP:RS is relevant here. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

    Well now, the self published refs mainly refer to the music and film releases which I have looked up and can most likely be referenced elswhere on nortable sites. This appears to be a repetition of what I have had to endure. (Boss Reality (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I am not sure why Boss Reality feels a need to quote what I said a couple of lines up, nor I am sure what self-published sources has to do with the policies I refereed to... but IF reliable sources exists, why are they not used in the article? Though in all fairness, Starman005 have stripped out a few references I tagged as unreliable and self published - even if the article still falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:BLP WegianWarrior (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notblity is established and I agree with the creator, Also there seem to be NY Times and NBC linkes too. Good enough ! (Boss Reality (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

* Comment - I refer to what the page looks / looked like at a certain time. So looking at this capture here I made after the last edit done by WegianWarrior at 11:42, 10 August 2014‎. That's what the page looked like after his / her edit. Basically the statement by this person is totaly incorrect. WegianWarrior says he / she has been through all the refs twice.
Quote WegianWarrior: "I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published."
This is incorrect and even I can see (with one eye closed) that the main foundation of the article is reliant on credible refs. Sure there are some self publshed refs. The self published refs are to do with some of the recordings released and a film or 2. It's the same as saying a house with concrete foundations has bamboo foundations and is unsteady just because the window covers are made from bamboo. If there is a bit of intentional misleading then that's very naughty of our young friend. If not then very careless and reckless. But besides that I know that this is a repetition of what happened with my articles and I do believe I detect censorship yet again. I'm not losing my mind here as I have asked others to look in and they have seen what I've seen. Now it seems others have to endure this with their articles and have their work deleted. Could this be so that people are now deciding what others should access? I do know from my limited time here that certain articles are much more likely to be deleted go against the official version of things and if the people they're about are hated by certain groups or organisations. This is commonn knowledge.I remember once a case of a boy messing up his brothers bed then calling his mother to say his brother hadn't made his bed. He may now have grown up into a man I once worked with who would sabotage other co workers projects to make them look bad. If Wikipedia is going to be an encylopedia with blanked out pages then we need to have a good long look at things and decide if this should be a place where one group decides what others should see and know. I can tell you right here and now that's not something I'd support. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It seems to me like you still don't have a policy-based reason why we should keep this, and are resorting to attacking your fellow editors.. frankly, it makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part any longer. However, lets have a look at the article as it stands now (per the time I'm typing). There is 22 references listed.
  • One goes to a transcript on "CNN.com" from the Glen Beck Show, which is at best borderline fringe.
  • One is "Escapee From America Magazine", which has all indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS.
  • Five is "Coast to Coast AM", which is catering to the fringe, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Freedom's Phoenix", which appears to be a fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to vonKleinst own website, self-published, as such ought to be avoided
  • One is to "lewrockwell.com", which has all the indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Wake Up! the Lord is Returning", a self-published book that appears far fringe, fails WP:RS (I hope the author's bed&breakfast is better than his book though)
  • One is to "911inplanesite.com", a self-published fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Why Do Drugs Cost So Much?", another self published fringe book, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "William Lewis Films", and is a dead link... looking at our article on William Lewis (film director) though, it's pretty clear that it's fringe as well.
That is fourteen (14) fringe and/or self-published sources, out of twenty-two. So yes, this article, as it stands, seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So... do you have any policy backed arguments as to why this should stay, or is this a purely emotional reaction from you? WegianWarrior (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually 16 sources. The AllMusic ref lists three albums the label is CD Baby which is a self publishing vehicle, so no record label has produced/distributed his work. IMDb, AllMovie and the info page hosted at The New York Times website (based on unedited content from Baseline) three very low quality sources. The NBC News source is "Weird NNBC News" news of the weird sections/features are specifically discussed in policy as not reliable sources. The New Scientist article makes passing mention also something discussed in policy as not supporting notability. The other sources are discussed above as non RS Fringe junk. The Coast to Coast ref in addition to being fringe is a bio of a guest on a talk radio show promotional bios are not RS. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Total fail of notability in any possible classification/category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny he hasn't linked any of the websites that mention his relationships (striking this as it is 'associations', not necessarily relationships) with neo-Nazis and other far-righters. Something that several of these biographies (eg his wife) have in common.
talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I would just like to point out that Coast to Coast AM is a globally syndicated radio program which has interviewed everyone from
Democracy Now would be as well. Mayhaps the above alleged National Socialist connections are not mentioned because we lack an RS? (although, there is also nothing inherently wrong with a far-"right" association; I do not see why it was even mentioned, by an Admin no less) His wife is lacking an article here and is not the subject of this article, so it is of no concern with this discussion. -- dsprc [talk] 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read the
Fringe theories guideline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment & Reply to Dougweller, you said "hasn'e linked any of the websites that mention his relationships with neo-Nazis". This is the firsdt that I have heard of anything to do with Neo Nazis andd I have researched von Kleist. What I see here is a childish attempt to do something untoward. This is now possibly a violation of Wikipedia policy and certainly grounds to alert Mr von Kliest of this so he can seek some legal advice. I'm disgusted that you'd try this on and you are supposed to be an administrator. I'll make sure that Mr von Kleist knows of this just in case he wants to act on it. (Starman005 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
As was inevitable and firm policy, another Admin has indefinitely blocked Starman005.
talk) 12:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Starman005: You shouldn't call the fire dept. when you're pouring fuel onto a fire which you've lit...
@
Filter Bubble (here is a TED Talk) which is used heavily by Google and shows us all different content (I didn't get any National Socialism stuff either, mostly just forums and self pub on first page). -- dsprc [talk]
@
talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
senior citizens with Adminship amongst our ranks? (I dare not out any however) :) -- dsprc [talk] 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

::::* Reply to MrBill3, Doesn't matter if the CD's are on CD baby or not. I believe you're attempt at making the point is to support your agenda. Now imagine this, If Harry Wayne Casey of

KC & The Sunshine Band hadn't found an overseas distributor for his records then they would have been released on his TK Records label which is the one he formed himself to get them out. They'd be self published then and I know that you wouldn't be tattooing his page with the like you've done here. Friend, sorry I disagree with you all the way on that and that doesn't stack up at all. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply
]

* Comparisons to make the point- Again I'm taking the unusual step to post here 2 comparisons of edits. One last edit by starman 005 who created thew article and the other by MrBill3 who after WegianWarrior has deliberately made a mess of the article by tagging it in a way that by my observations could only be described as a strategic manoeuvrings to discredit the article to hasten and ensure it's deletion. This tactic has been previously and successfully applied by WegianWarrior and my good friend Dougweller and usual core group that follow him around. Rather than discussing the quality of the links that have also been pointed out by 2 other editors here to be worthy, this tactic is instead employed. And again I emphasize it's done IMO to get rid of the article. The questions pops up like a helium balloon riding a huge sudden gust of wind .... What's the agenda? (Boss Reality (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Boss Reality: Please use links and make use of the history page, reposting the entire article is unreadable. The best thing is use a Diff to show the changes from one version to another.
Revision as of 05:12, 10 August 2014 by Starman005
Diff to MrBill3
As to an agenda, everyone has one so cool it. By that I mean there are different philosophies on editorial control. There are deletionist and inclusionist with most editors in between. While I can appreciate you see tactics, it could simply be bold editing to get a never-ending job done. There are over 4.5million articles on the English Wikipedia, having a drawn out debate on each issue isn't in the cards.
Currently I'm neutral to the deletion to give the article time to shore up 3rd party refs, but that's being generous; self published refs are a big red flag @ Wikipedia when it comes to Bios. RoyBoy 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to RoyBoy, I was trying to show where and how the IMO the messing up of an article occurs. BTW: thanks for the info amigo. I wasn't sure how to do it. I think I may be OK for next time. I'll try to sandbox test and see if it works the way I want. Cheers (Boss Reality (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment regarding the messing up of the article which IMO would likely discourage others from improving it (if improvement warranted). If you look here you'll see the difference between the 2 vastly examples of the edit. One recent one by starman 005 and a more recent one by MrBill 3. So look here -->> My edit Revision as of 23:01, 13 August 2014 by by Boss Reality. You'll have to scroll right down the page to see the examples and you'll see one example, the top one of the two. Now it's obvious it's up for deletion. Someone may come along and improve the article. Now the one right at the bottom that has IMO been tattooed with so much that most people wouldn't bother with it. So the deletion process in this case has been greatly stacked in favor of one stance while the other stance has been greatly handicapped. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]


  • Observation, I've just been looking over the board below

    Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

    Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.

    Quote: Dougweller Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[3] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[4] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[5][6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

    Please note other content in between these 2 entries not included.

    Quote DougwellerYes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

All I can say here is it's not a good look at this kind of what I believe to be carlessness and possible naughtiness should that not be encouraged. It could give folks the wrong idea. So please let's play fair. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment You sure you are at the right article? This isn't about Rokke but about vonKleist. Of course if you are just posting to attack me, maybe this is the wrong place.
      talk) 12:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Ooteghem

David Van Ooteghem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a curriculum vitae for a non-notable professional. damiens.rf 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow close and salt. This looks like it was deleted quite a few times already under various different names (created once already at

(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Shot 2015

Shot 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Shot (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

good faith. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding a potential merge or name change can continue on an article talk page if desired. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Globular Flute

Globular Flute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. It was unreferenced and now one source is found, so we know this flute exists, it is not an OR. However we don't have multiple independent reliable sources on it; at least I could not find any. Dubious notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. Globular Flute is another name for Vessel flute, see [11]. Perhaps some of the information can be transferred there. GeorgeMisty (talk) 17
44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's see what other people will say. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What it is "another name for" is irrelevant here. The article is not about "globular flutes" / "vessel flutes" in general, it is about a particular neolithic object, a globular flute which is, due to its uniqueness, simply known as the "globular flute" - though some other sources name it the "Miramor flute", (see [12]), so that, or "Miramor globular flute", could be an alternative article title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But change the title to Mramor globular flute. This AFD seems laughable to me. In an previous incarnation of it Why should I have a User Name? gave as his reasoning "No sources, no notability. Archeological museums around the world are full of similar findings". I wonder what museums the proposer frequents that are "full of" neolithic musical instruments! Such objects are incredibly rare. Why should I have a User Name? likes tagging things - but he NEVER searches for sources. Tagging is easy, source searching is difficult. I found several sources for this article, and I also found footnote citations mentioning the object's existance in specialist sources as well, indicating its notability and importance amongs specialists of this period. It was also depicted in the cover photo of an exhibition of neolithic instruments, and if you search youtube you can find several examples of musicians playing replicas of it. I dod not add those additional refferences to the article because I felt what is there easily shows notability and importance. This particular object is highly unusual, and probably unique in a European archaeological context. There is nothing else like it that has survived, but its existence gives an important insight into what neolithic culture was like. It was found in Macedonia, and so the primary literature on it going to be in Macedonian, not an easy language for searches. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sole reference contains a couple of illustrations of this item among many others. There is no substantive discussion. No other references. I Googled and did not find any other references regarding this particular item.--Rpclod (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrations are not "the sole reference" - the illustrations are taken from the cited book in Macedonian, they are not the whole book. As for saying "illustrations of this item among many others", books/articles/papers/etc on archaeological subjects normally contain descriptions of other objects for comparison, so of course there are illustrations of other objects in that pdf excerpt - the fact that there are other objects to compare it to increases the notability and value of the object in the eyes of experts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Macedonian speakers - is this a museum exhibit brochure of the flute? http://www.kingmarkoland.com/Upload/Content/Documents/Praistoriska_topcesta_flejta.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't be civil, please leave this discussion. Rather than posting personal insults, why not respond to the points I made? In case you did not notice, the "vessel flute" article is empty of content and is just a link page to other articles - so what is there to merge with? Or do you want to turn the "vessel flute" article into an article whose content is entirely about this object. Have you not noticed that an article about this object already exists, that article being the article this AfD is about! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (probably renaming) -- This is a particular artefact. Merging it to what is currently effectively a list article (with little content) and largely concerned with the Far East is wholly inappropriate. The article cites four references - an initial report and discussions of it. This is ample for a short article. Whether it is of Neolithic date may be controversial, due to the lack of an archaeological context, but I do not think that its existence is. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Devabhaktuni

Vijay Devabhaktuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having doubts on the

here
where i am open to discussions. You are welcome to challenge this deletion if you feel the page meets any other criteria . Sahil 13:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Sahil 13:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sahil 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) >
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment What does this have to do with Utah,
talk to me 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply Hi
Jinkinson , My Bad . I have moved it to the Right sorted Page (Ohio), where the University of Toledo is located -- Sahil 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
> Hi
Prof#C1
states that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" . No such sources cited -- Sahil 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Take another look at
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply
]
Hi Xxanthippe , Sorry ,I Dont get it . Could you help me go through the specific point which passes this article as a weak keep ? Thank you -- Sahil 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Thank you to Gongshow for finding sources and tidying the article. --Kinu t/c 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Faze

3rd Faze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, as tagged five years ago. Only source provided is an AllMusic profile. No substantive coverage found in

WP:RS. Kinu t/c 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Sign my Guestbook 09:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Sign my Guestbook 09:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
    WP:MUSIC, criteria 4. More sources have been added since the nomination and the nominator themselves indicated they'd be willing to widraw the nomination. -- Taketa (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellenor Bland

Ellenor Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a person who held a position as a member of a local council and ran unsuccessfully for higher office, and held very minor positions in a party structure. Nothing about her raises to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Depth of media coverage is sufficient to satisfy

WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your intent and desire to apply it in this manner are not what's relevant. The policy is what's relevant. The Ellenor Bland controversy was not, as you put it, not a "big deal." This was a major controversy that is part of an important topic. Deleting it would be a whitewash. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. you say it yourself: "controversy", i.e., single event. And my "not a big deal" is not about her. It is about all these local racists who go unnoticed by major media. This one was out of luck and got herself into a big deal. 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: Staszek has now excised the article of the entire section dealing with the racism controversy. Talk about white-washing! Cbl62 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you to read
talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of pizza chains of the United States. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Pizza

Planet Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail

WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding much coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica1000 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to
wp:CSD. --doncram 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, so why dont you call xenophrenic to task, it was his idea, i was just echoing it. I almost never propose a CSD, and would not have done so here w/o others pointing out no refs for 6 years.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sorry, i had not noticed xenophrenic's note about A7 criterion (no assertion of notability) possibly applying. I disagree that that criterion applied. Actually the recent article history shows many back-and-forth edits with xenophrenic removing a lot of material, and with editor Northamerica1000 restoring it at least partially. this version of the article showed considerably more content and context; i think notability is fairly clearly suggested in that version. Xenophrenic did in fact try to speedy delete it, but that was declined by Northamerica1000, properly IMO. --doncram 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Strong Keep", "Strong Delete", "Weak Keep", Weak Delete" are other vote expressions to consider. Those are standard vote types that are counted up in the automated review of editors' AFD participations (where can we see that for u or me, i am not sure, i have seen these linked from RFAs sometimes i think). --doncram 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small clarification regarding what "recent article history shows":
  • with Xenophrenic removing a lot of completely unsourced material, and with editor Northamerica1000 restoring it without supplying a single citation
The fact that the version to which you linked was completely unsourced (and dubious as well, after an in-depth search produced zero sourced corroboration of that content); that has been so since 2008; and has remained so after several removals with requests that sources be provided if reinstated -- shows it is indeed a candidate for speedy deletion, although one unfamiliar with the industry might argue not under (A7). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (changed from Weak Keep, changed from Delete). Not withstanding my disagreement with "Speedy Delete" vote above, the nomination seems sound. Thank you Northamerica1000 for performing
    wp:BEFORE. Also I searched in newspaper databases behind paywall and found no mentions at all in the Wall Street Journal (searched from about 1985 on) or in the New York Times (historical), and no recent coverage besides a trivial mention, out of a bigger database of national newspapers. So, it does seem not notable to me, unless someone comes up with some material. --doncram 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
However, I change from "Delete" to "Weak Keep" for now based on seeing earlier version of the article which seems more substantial. Specifically that it was a major chain, a signicant competitor to
Chuck E. Cheese's, a surviving chain that ended up acquiring many of Planet Pizza's stores. With that much, though sources are not given, it seems to me that significant coverage at the time must have existed. My own search of national news coverage was not of historical coverage, besides for WSJ and NYT. The bankruptcy filing(s) would provide reliable coverage, for example. Also searching in LATimes history and other western papers would be of help. --doncram 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you intend to continue your search for sources, or are you offering suggestions in the hope that others might take up the endeavor? I'll watchlist this page in anticipation of someone having better luck than I did (after searching business records, bankruptcy records and newspapers local to the alleged founding location: Cupertino / Santa Clara County). Frankly, after reading the Talk page discussions about fiction intentionally introduced at that article page, I'm even beginning to suspect a hoax article built on a believable premise. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the list article should be acceptable. But probably not to the defunct section, as an actual non-notable, but still operating small chain exists: Planet Pizza. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay on a link to the list article in general not to the specific section. The California-based Planet Pizza and the Connecticut-based one can both be listed.
About more searching, i asked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#California historical news search (1980s-1990s) on Planet Pizza and the quick reply by John M Baker is negative. I asked for LATimes search, and he did that and more. Cupertino is not near LA, so i still think there can exist substantial coverage out there, but I am not finding it now. Done for now. --doncram 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of national animals

List of national animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the content is uncited and much of it is wrong; heck, some of it is unofficial, i.e. it includes animals which are not the national animal of the country in question. Some of the listings aren't even for nations. It violates

WP:MOSFLAG. It's hard to patrol and unlikely to ever be reliable. Furthermore, the contents would likely be better off in each individual country, anyway; I claim there's no significant benefit to breaking it out and displaying it here. On the other hand, the pictures are nice. Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

AfDs for this article:
Philosophy and religion in Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stars Wars is not a country. This topic is unwarranted and un-notable. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (deliver) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous secondary sources that discuss both the philosophy and religious aspects of the Star Wars Universe. The article itself lists the book Star Wars and Philosophy and there are other books: The Dharma of Star Wars, The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force, Star Wars Jesus, etc. In addition there has bee a good bit written on the mythological foundations of the Star Wars universe; see for instance
    WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not reasons for deletion. One may question whether philosophy and religion should get separate articles or a combined article; but this again is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Delete, but not for the nominating reason. While sources do discuss different aspects this topic, this article can't help but become a lot of SYNTH being cobbled together to make an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list of sources in the further reading is a compelling argument against the assertion that this topic is non-notable. Any potential problems, such as synthesis, can be corrected through normal editing. Articles shouldn't be kept or deleted based on personal feelings about the subject matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, this will never progress beyond a stub. This is not even worthy of a merge. The entire article can be summarised in a sentence on the Star Wars article. Something like: "Religion in Star Wars includes aspects of Christianity ... and comments on ethics..." Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the massive amount of literature found in Google books. Plenty of scope here for expansion, especially on the links to Zoroastrianism. Some of those making "delete" arguments don't seem to have searched. Niteshift36 makes a valid point, but with care, a SYNTH-free article is quite possible. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are now several reliable references in the article, documenting links to several different religious concepts. I also note that the article was once much longer, but was stubbed down due to lack of references. -- 101.117.109.179 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous nominator withdrew, declaring "I deserve a trout" for not finding the large array of available sources. Faced with a much lesser task, of reading what the previous nominator had to say, this nominator still failed. What is next after trout? Anarchangel (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have more than enough sources to be
    WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. G12 j⚛e deckertalk 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMI-CB250

OMI-CB250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article about a cluster bomb. The entire text in the article is ripped from the only source in the article (the manufacturer's own page about it: http://www.ordtech-industries.com/2products/Bomb_Cluster/Bomb_Cluster_CB.html ), apart from punctuation and "they" being changed to "it". CSD G12 might be applicable, but I chose to nominate the article for AfD since the text wasn't copied verbatim. Thomas.W talk 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (deliver) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (constabulary) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Food Talk India

Food Talk India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to promotional to me. Just two sources, one does not even mention "Food Talk India", other just mentions it in passing. Google News search returns 0 hits [18], so does GoogleBooks search [19]. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Me5000 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)

AfDs for this article:
Columbia Mall (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous debate closed as no consensus. Sources are either trivial, passing mentions or not about the mall and are not enough to meet

WP:GNG
.

  • Source 1 is a primary source
  • Source 2 contains one half of a sentence about the mall
  • Source 3 and 4 are just directory listings
  • Source 5 only contains one sentence about the mall
  • Source 6 and 7 are about a single store opening at the mall nothing about the mall itself
  • Source 8 and 9 talk about traffic around the mall and other places nothing actually about the mall itself
  • Source 10 probably the best source, but still doesn't say much about the mall itself
  • Source 11 about traffic around the mall area and other areas, nothing about the mall itself

I've searched using google for other sources and nothing else comes up except directory listings. Fails

WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - The nom's previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Mall (Missouri) (2nd nomination) just ended on June 17 with absolutely no different argument offered for deletion with this one except for a couple of comments on additional sources about this topic. AfD is not a mechanism to be abused over sour grapes due to a previous recent outcome. I also see the nom created the first AfD which only ended in March. Instead of spending so much energy and editors' time to your deletion desire of this article, I'd advise using your time contributing content to articles and improving them. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close  This was created two hours and ten minutes after the close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 29#Columbia Mall (Missouri), which was also begun by the same editor.  Nom conveniently ignores the search suggestions provided in the first AfD in claiming he can't find any sources.  Nom was briefly blocked recently for edit warring to get this topic redirected to Columbia, MO.  Nom was asked at the DRV to explain the pattern of creating mall stubs, mall AfDs, mall DRVs, participation in mall AfDs, and attempts to redirect mall articles; at the most recent DRV, but didn't answer.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, for all the reasons stated above. I would close this myself, but was involved in the original AfD, thus feel a certain conflict of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Also of note is that as of this close, the article has two references in it as inline citations. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

King's Highway (ancient)

King's Highway (ancient) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thorough search yielded not a single source supporting the claims made in the article. Text is basically unchanged since the article was created in 2005. It was tagged unsourced in 2007. If anyone does manage to unearth a RS, that would be very nice. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There are many modern Kings' Highways, there's a "Darb al Malik", a ""Darb al Sultan"[20], there's one from Amman to Aqaba[21], but nothing ancient. Kleuske (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google search finds many authoritative sources. For example: Lee, Jessica (18 Sep 2012). "Travelling the slow route to Petra". Road Trips. BBC. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014.; Gimlette, John (28 Mar 2012). "Jordan: the King's Highway to adventure and amazement". Travel. The Telegraph. Kent, UK: Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014.; "Touristic Sites". Kingdom of Jordan. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014..--Rpclod (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC-version o the "Kings Highway" is mentioned above as running from Amman to Aqaba, not from Egypt to the Euphrates as the article does. The rest are tourist oriented pieces and do not count as "authorative" in my book, especially when it is about "ancient traderoutes". Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Still unsourced. Sources that exist haven't been added. If there's consensus for deletion, I'd like the closing admin to add this to my collection of articles to rehab. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify -- Apart from the Biblical quotation, this is unsourced. I strongly suspect that the interpretation of the quotation will be a matter of dispute. This is a subject that needs much more than traveller's tales and guidebooks; these hardly count as
    WP:OR. It may be that there are scholarly discussions of the question, in which case they should be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Seems notable. Needs references. I've posted a comment on WikiProject Judaism. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence it ever existed as one route. It looks like the other articles on other Wikipedias are copies of this one except [24] which is about a different road.
    talk) 14:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As you might realise, ancient routes abounded, and given their nature, adequate references are hard to come by unless you're an anthropologist or an expert on the subject matter. At a quick glance, I find hundreds of references to a highway named as such, but in order to attest to which particular path the sources refer to I'd have to spend hours reading those sources. That's why I support asking an expert. It may turn out to be of no relevance, or may be based on inaccurate information. We must err on the side of caution and take our time in determining the facts. There was such a highway (by name and region), there's no evidence to say there wasn't: what needs to be determined is the accuracy of the information relayed in the article. As for your administrative concerns, don't worry: I have spent years editing on Wikipedia. Regards, CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance you find hundreds of sources? Care to share a couple of them? After all, you are not the only wikipedian who can read. We might share the burden. Kleuske (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know I'm not the only one! A simple Scholar search returned thousands of articles. I don't have access to academic databases at the moment, so if you do you might add a great deal to the discussion. The articles' descriptions shed light to the fact that there indeed was such a road, althouth as I said I can't access the articles themselves. Thanks, CesareAngelotti (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes... I've been over those and ended up with the above. There's more than one road called "Kings Highway", in the UK, the US, Australia and in Jordan. The first you can discard and the sources on the others don't match and none seem to support the article. Kleuske (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Cobbs

Michelle Cobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in the article as it stands, fails

WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I found a mention in the BBC but we really need multiple in-depth independent nontrivial reliable sources as per the GNG. Probably a great singer; would be great to keep her in Wikipedia but we need the sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Leil - Leila Sohrab

Dj Leil - Leila Sohrab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails

WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield positive results in terms of reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy on request. Deor (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Dangerous Cure

A Dangerous Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. Launchballer 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Honey

David B. Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know how to check his citation count, but this professor's publications look a bit too skimpy (in the Ohio U. listing) and there's nothing in the Honors section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not going to weight in on this article being deleted, but this link [39] shows about the level of his citation. His Southern Garden Society book was only published a little over a year ago, so it might yet come to be more cited, and his translations of a few major Chinese scholarly works might be of some note. One think I remain unsure of is if there might be references to him in sources in Chinese. His BYU bio mentions among other things his composing an 80-line poem about the history of the activities of the Palace Museum, in Chinese, presented at a conference at the Palace Museum. I'm not sure if he would get notice is Chinese publications, but that is one possibility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

♔ 05:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Call Me Under 666

Call Me Under 666 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, fails

WP:NALBUM JayJayWhat did I do? 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 12:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Pilla

John Pilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician, notability not inherited. Not exactly sure why PROD was declined, explanation given had nothing to do with the PROD tag. Safiel (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedy per
    notability is not inherited - Pilla doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere independently, just passing mentions in bios of other musicians. Ansh666 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 12:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (

♔ 05:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Vringo

Vringo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed this article be deleted for appearing like an advertisement on July 22. There was no objection to the proposed deletion for 7 days but an administrator did not delete the article. Perhaps this deserves more discussion. Thank you for your input. --Xwarrior3721 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This discussion page was started with just the text above, untemplated, and added to the log page from a week ago. I've reformatted it with the proper template. This has been done as a courtesy, and I'll officially stay out of the discussion itself, other than to note that three earlier attempts to create an article on this company were A7/G11 speedied back in 2008. --Finngall talk 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Being written as an advertisement is not in and of itself sufficient reason for deletion (and I don't see that as too much of an issue here anyway). There are a sufficient number of
    WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like a keeper. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give A Day Global

Give A Day Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable organization, no refs found in search Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe someday this organization will be notable, but it certainly isn't now. It was formed only a year or so ago, by three people in San Francisto who thought it sounded like a good idea; they don't even have nonprofit status yet. Absolutely no outside sources have taken note of them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Nancy Hayfield

AfDs for this article:
Nancy Hayfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous deletion discussion resulted in no consensus with weak arguments IMO. Non-notable author fails

WP:BIO JayJayWhat did I do? 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and
    Bill Birnes into one joint article. I think enough of both their notabilities is tied to their being joint creators of the UFO Magazine that that is what should be focused on here. It would help if her husband was named in this article, but that really would lead to both their articles overlapping a lot, so I think it would be best if we merged them to one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitthal Patil (Choreographer)

Vitthal Patil (Choreographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This may be a case of wp:autobiography. The same editor uploaded a high-resolution photo of the subject (File:Vitthal Patil - Choreographer - Actor - Director.jpeg) that cannot be found on the internet using Google image search. This leads me to the conclusion that the author is the subject himself, or somebody closely connected to him. The problem with the article is the wp:notability. There are four references: one to Facebook, one to the IMDb (not a reliable source per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb), one to a YouTube trailer that does not mention the subject, and one to a page that also does not mention the subject. So, the article is basically unsourced. I tried Google general search and Google books, and there are some hits, but nothing very convincing. This is the only reliable-looking source I found. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (

♔ 05:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Shahira Barry

Shahira Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet

WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (constabulary) @ 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Pouliot

Yannick Pouliot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has numerous issues, particularly notability per

WP:N (the article has been tagged orphaned since Jan 2011). There also appears to be a conflict of interest, as the article appears to be about the main contributor (note the second section on the talk page, headed 'Yannick Pouliot has many accomplishments')) Amkilpatrick (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest looking at his publications to see if he meets

WP:ACADEMICS. You can see his Google Scholar profile here. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert_Poggio

AfDs for this article:
Albert_Poggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear vanity article with most of the text added by the subject, though well-sourced, not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article Uberphail (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Simon Leiter

Rabbi Simon Leiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in this article explains why he is notable enough for a WP Article. Lots of rabbi's and priest write teachings - doesn't make them all notable Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BEBOLD that are essential for building up WP as an encyclopedia and not tearing it down if it does not meet your personal exceedingly high standards given your predilection for voting to delete almost all suggestions that are posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, while I function in the mode of Meta:Inclusionism. Thanks, and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I will not dwell on the differences in our ideas of notability; though you exaggerate my deletionism a bit, we obviously disagree often, but I think my concept of notability is somewhat closer to the general Wikipedia community's than yours.
However, it is clear that you ignored the first part of what I wrote above: I demonstrated that Leiter was not notable in his own field—rabbinical literature! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R.Panchavarnam

R.Panchavarnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local councillor. Even his books are self published Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MC Shaq

MC Shaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims seem to meet notability requirements for musicians. The sources do not meet the General notability guidelines. At best one may be independent and reliable, but even that is not clear. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for more input per User:Nafsadh's !vote above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by

NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Death of Casey Calvert

Death of Casey Calvert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sad but not notable death. Even the dead person does not have his own article so a redirect is not possible. Some info could go to the band's article, but ultimately this article does not belong. Dmol (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED WORLD TOUR

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED WORLD TOUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"The tour dates are yet to be announced." I can't find any reliable sources. —

t c 07:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It can be speedied per
is an unsourced claim of future events.Forbidden User (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and

WP:HAMMER...William 14:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of motels

List of motels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a misdirected article that doesn't serve anyone's needs. With less than 40 entries, and a title that does nothing to define it's usefulness, I can see no point in it's existence. BTW, 2 of it's entries are the exact same entity. I do not know of the policy to cite for this AfD request, but when reasonable people can agree, it is consensus and do we really need a policy? A list better served as a category, or possibly a better defined list with a more useful title? John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Same result as last AfD. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reframe It

AfDs for this article:
Reframe It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSOFT
:

  • QUOTE In addition, although notability is not temporary, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.
  • Further nomination comment That seems to be the situation here, there was a burst of coverage in mostly technical sources, along with a mention in the New York Times, after which this software faded into obscurity, with the company eventually failing completely. I don't think true notability was ever achieved. Safiel (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Site is pretty much dead at this point, and does not appear to be notable enough to merit an article. Also, given that the project is dead, I don't see it meeting
    WP:NOTABLE in the future. Jab843 (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayomi Vithanage.

Ayomi Vithanage. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Judging by what the article currently contains, seems to be of questionable notability. Article appears to have been written by subject. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Geoffrey A. Richards

Geoffrey A. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this page by mistake, a friend of mine on wikipedia suggested I nominate it for deletion to remove the article because of notability concerns. EarthWindAndPeaceYall (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist titles of honour

List of socialist titles of honour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic fails

WP:LISTCRUFT -- an indiscriminate collection of information. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (tell me stuff) @ 12:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the other article too, for much the same reason. The information can be given in cult of personality and in the articles on each person and party. (The honorary titles can be in each person's article, and should be. The claim that the Labour Party (Norway) is a cult of personality, if that is a notable claim, should be included in its article.) No overall notability has been indicated by secondary sources. BayShrimp (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: [See below.] First of all,
    Dear Leader. My basic intention with the article is to gather this type of titles in a way that allows external Wikipedia users easy access to the information concerned. In other words, it is less important how this list is organised. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Regarding notability: The list is double-covered by two significant fields of knowledge:
original research. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Why do you not cite the next sentence? '(We should avoid a banal word-to-word comparison when interpreting WP:GNG, like User:Tchaliburton and User:Clarityfiend intend to do.)' I am not keen on discussing with
WP:ORIGINAL. Are you attacking the article via the title? Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Because the next sentence had nothing to do with my comment. The reason it's original research is because you're synthesizing information from various sources to put forward new ideas. Searching for "socialist titles of honour" yields one result: your article. See
WP:MADEUP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchaliburton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
A poorly chosen title is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic—titles as a part of socialist cults of personality—is broadely known, not least via news and literature concerning North Korea, but also within history concerning several socialist states and parties. Anyway, I recognise your concerns, so I have created a new, improved, and descriptive (i.e. non-normative) title: Titles related to socialist cults of personality. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is my political agenda, Mr Ellingsen himself? Tchaliburton (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following related article because it has the same problems:

Titles related to socialist cults of personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TFD (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete them all -- It is totally inappropriate to compare Norway (a democracy) with fascist regimes, whether of the right (Nazi) or left (communist). While the ideology of the right and left may (possibly) be different, the effect is similar - a police state. I regard the inclusion of Norway as an ATTACK article. I do not know what the implication of "land-mother" or "land-father" may be, but I feel sure that it is quite differnet from il duce and the like. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including the baloney List of titles used by socialist leaders. Mr. Ellingsen can fight his norwegian battles elsewhere.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case it's not clear, I am also formally nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems and appear to be the author's attempt to circumvent this likely deletion:
List of titles used by socialist leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Titles related to socialist cults of personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 12:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Wong

Keri Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NTENNIS. Two sources are cited, and they indicate that she has not competed in a WTA main draw, and her ITF prize was less than $50,000. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines states a player as notable if:

The player has competed in the main draw in one of these higher level professional tournaments: Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships)

And states that it applies equally to singles and doubles players. She has played the 2014 Citi Open which is a WTA International event. Keroks (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose @
project standards. Here is the drawsheet of said tournament. Jared Preston (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Already done. And thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Fundraising

Listen Fundraising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

WP:CORP
. Vast majority of sources are explicitly on the org's own website or founders personal website.

[45] and [46] both written by the founder as well.

Won two industry level awards.

In my

WP:RS I came across [47] and [48] which appears to be the only reliable source covering the company, which is accusing the multiple-company organization of graft and corruption. Unsurprisingly that source is not used in the article! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello Gene93k, I have read through your points made above though i don't believe this falls under the criteria of a deletion tag. It is stated that this should only be the case if the page is beyond repair, which this is not.
I Have also made some notes on the talk page but also wanted to put forward some notes here. The main point you mentioned above was that the vast majority of sources are of the org's own website or the website site, though this is not and has not been the case. At the time of the deletion tag being added there were 5 of the 14 references being from primary sources. This was not the vast majority though i have taken on board your feedback to improve the page and will continue to do so. The page has many references that are not included in the above such as The Guardian [49] Katrinamoris2014 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Gaijin42, I made the comments above, Gene93k is just adding some sorting information to the deletion discussion.

There are currently 11 sources used in the article

  • 1 & 2 tonycharalambides.com (same link)
  • 3 listenfundraising
  • 4 written by tony charalambides
  • 5 Guardian written by Tony Charalmbides
  • 6 PR website just saying go listen on the org's website
  • 7 written by tony
  • 8 written by tony ( same as #5)
  • 9 same as #4
  • 10 & 11 minor industry awards
Hi Gaijin42, I have now removed the primary sources 1, 2 and 3 (Tony Charalambides website and the companies website). I will continue to work on building references from third party credible sources. However, the page as it stands is not worthy of deletion. The article reads neutrally without a bias point of view, all content is factual and is in no way promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinamoris2014 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (

♔ 04:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The Singing Stone

The Singing Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable references available to demonstrate notability; fails

WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I have no reason to doubt that the nominator complied with
    WP:BEFORE, I do wonder how extensive their effort was. Admittedly, the kind of reviews needed to show a thirty-year old book's notability are often old enough to be either entirely offline or only showing up as almost invisible snippets on a GBooks search, but in this case, the second result in a GBooks search using the book's title and author's surname is an academic work which discusses the book in detail. The other results I looked at within the GBooks search weren't as conclusive - but they included entries in bibliographic guides for librarians (reliable but fairly short and possibly not selective enough), a passing mention in a literary encyclopedia (where even a mention is almost certainly based on reliable sources), and a number of older tantalising snippets, which I suspect - but can't prove - would fully establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and speedy close. Basic check shows the novel was reviewed in
    WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge with O. R. Melling. The author barely has notability (probably doesn't), and a Google search with the word "review" mostly brings up self-publishing sites (eg. GoodReads) and amazon.com. The rest are blogs from what appear to be fans. No notable reviewer or critic seems to even know this books exists. I don't see any news sites, lists, awards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I've added more sources to the article. The book was shortlisted for the Ruth Schwartz Children's Book Award; it has received coverage in the Ottawa Citizen and The Globe and Mail, among others. I also see, from my library's database, that it received reviews in Publishers Weekly 231 21 (May 29, 1987): 79; in CM : Canadian Materials for Schools and Libraries 14 6 (Nov 1986): 270; in Quill & Quire 52 10 (Oct 1986): 20; Books in Canada 15 9 (Dec 1986): 18; and in Canadian Children's Literature (1987): 71–72. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's not an overwhelming consensus here, but the weight of the arguments seem enough to call this delete. An argument was made that, As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest.. If that turns out to be true, then I suspect sufficient additional references will surface to establish

WP:N, and the article can be re-created at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

(14825) Fieber-Beyer

(14825) Fieber-Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet

t • c) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Criteria #1: Yes, the asteroid is not visible to the naked eye - in fact, no asteroid is. Criteria #2: The asteroid is listed in many significant databases including the external links provided within the article. To date the asteroid has been observed 713 times, for verification please see the IAU link in the external links in the article. Amateur astronomers can and frequently do use these publicly available databases to observe asteroids and gather photometric data to define the rotational period and shape models of asteroids lacking these parameters. Criteria #3: The asteroid has just been named after a disabled American astronomer within the last month who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space in which (14825) Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites, she was interviewed and explicitly stated this - the link to the newspaper interview is listed in the references. The MPC citation for the naming of the asteroid is listed in the references as well as two published new articles. The page was created to document findings of the past, present, and future study of asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer as they become newly available. The existing information has been incorporated and new information will be updated regularly. Criteria #4: It is undisputed that the discovery did not take place before 1850. Therefore, notability is met for criteria #2 and #3. SKFB (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

I'm with
StringTheory11
on this one, the article should be deep sixed.
  • Criteria 2 fails because, while it may be of interest to amateur astronomers, it has not been given a designation on any relevant catalog. Also, just because it's been observed a few hundred times doesn't make it notable.
    WP:NASTRO
    also makes a mention of not duplicating lists just for listing sake - if it's in IAU and others, why repeat it here?
  • Criteria 3 fails (in my mind) because I was unable to find a single peer-reviewed article where this asteroid was the main focus (or ANY focus). Also, Fieber-Beyer had not (as of the time of the writing of the article) actually viewed the asteroid herself, let alone published work on it.
I was going to suggest it gets put on the
list of notable asteroids in the asteroid belt, but I don't know if it even would fit there... Primefac (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, it should be noted the asteroid is noted on a few different Wikipedia pages and the stub created appends these listings as well. For example, on Edward_L._G._Bowell all 572 of his discovered asteroids are listed. Each that has a given name has a stub attached to it, while the others are just listed with their numbered designations. The stub for (14825) Fieber-Beyer has external links, citations, news articles, etc. much more so than a majority of the objects in that listing. A great many amateur astronomers do follow Bowell's astronomical works and by visiting his page and clicking on each asteroid one can clearly see the breadth of Bowell's contributions in astronomy and inspire others to do the same. Professionals also seek out Bowell and his asteroid finds. The asteroid is also listed in List_of_minor_planets_named_after_people. As of April 15, 2014, the IAU Minor Planet Center reported orbits for 639,091 minor planets, of which 393,347 are numbered minor planets, and 18,504 are named minor planets (IAU Minor Planet Center: http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html). Only 5,954 light curves (rotation rates are derived from this) have been determined as of February 28, 2014 (http://www.minorplanet.info/lightcurvedatabase.html). The majority of these can be attributed to amateur astronomers. As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest. Fieber-Beyer has an extensive publishing history in peer-reviewed journals i.e.

Astronomy_and_Astrophysics, and regularly archives spectral data on the NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node. Removing the stub is a disservice to the planetary science community, both amateur and professional. SKFB (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply
]

Even if an asteroid has a light curve, this does not constitute significant coverage per NASTRO or the
t • c) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5,954 asteroids with lightcurves do not constitute "sheer number" considering there are 639091 minor planets. The asteroids with lightcurves make up 0.009% of the population. That's less than 1% of minor planets having a lightcurve. It seems we have come to a stalemate on notability. As far as Fieber-Beyer's publications, she has several.[P 1][P 2][P 3][P 4][P 5][P 6][P 7][P 8][P 9][P 10][P 11][P 12][P 13][P 14][P 15] These are just a few of the thirty plus peer-reviewed articles I located for Fieber-Beyer's research which is centralized in the region of space (14825) is located. It is a target body for her research. SKFB (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

That percent is wrong; doing the arithmetic is is 0.9% that have light curves, not 0.009%, quite a significant difference. 0.9% of over 600000 is still quite a large number. Looking at the sources, they again only mention the asteroid in passing or as a comparison, and do not go in-depth on it, which is required for significant coverage. Clearly not evidence of notability, and instead evidence that there does not appear to be significant coverage.
t • c) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,0.9% is correct. That is still less than 1% of the total number of asteroids having a lightcurve. It is not a large number, that is a minute number. Criteria #2 and #3 are met. The asteroid is listed in many significant databases, has been observed 713 times, and is of interest to amateur astronomers. Furthermore, the asteroid was named after a disabled American astronomer who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space where asteroid (14825)Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites. Citations regarding this have been listed in the article. SKFB (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]
Just a note, as of today there are now 646094 minor planets, so that would make the 0.9% even much more less than 1% [P 16] Also, CalSky is ANOTHER catalog of significance to astronomers amateur and professional further solidifying criteria #2 being met. The citation provided links to asteroids of the 14000s. If you click on 14825 Fieber-Beyer you can generate the ephemerides of (14825), as well as get a graph that reveals when asteroid (14825) will be visible or calculate the date of closest approach or opposition. CalSky is used worldwide by amateur and professionals.SKFB (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]
Found a reference specifically stating when asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer will be spectroscopically studied providing even more detailed knowledge about this minor planet. A line was added in the article and the citation sourced on the article page (14825) Fieber-Beyer. SKFB (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]
We have already established that this asteroid does not pass criterion #2, since it is not in the Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues, and is in no catalogue besides the minor planet catalogue, which contains every single minor planet. CalSky is not a catalogue; it's simply a calculator. 0.9% may seem like a lot by percentages, but we have to remember that 0.9% of over 500000 is still a huge humber, around 5000. Criteria #3 is not met because every link you provided does not constitude significant coverage; but again constitudes simply passing mentions in the article, which clearly is not enough for the
t • c) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648
  2. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PDSS..199.....F
  3. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511002235
  4. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511000935
  5. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510004811
  6. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhDT.......134F
  7. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648
  8. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G
  9. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1405.3970M
  10. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010M%26PSA..73.5122F
  11. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G
  12. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014LPI....45.1428F
  13. ^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PDSS..146.....F
  14. ^ http://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V1.0
  15. ^ http://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V2.0
  16. ^ http://www.calsky.com/observer/dataminor.cgi?page=14
  • Delete. In terms of its representation in the scientific literature, this clearly fails
    WP:NASTRO. We do have two newspaper articles about its naming, but they're not really different from each other in what aspect of the subject they cover, and they're both very local. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming, which might be irrelevant for
    WP:GNG. Add to this that there is a lightcurve, and thus evidence of academic interest, and we have a case for notability (That a lot of asteroids have light curves is irrelevant - notable does not mean unique).--cyclopiaspeak! 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletet yes, multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming in local papers due to press release, but no significant coverage. It maybe
    WP:TOOSOON, if the claims about future study come to fruition. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article is therefore kept by default.  Sandstein  09:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Yongfu

Yu Yongfu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Third recreation of an article that has already been G11-speedied twice since its first creation on July 2; in light of that I felt it better to go the AFD route instead of speedying it a third time. The problem here is that the article is essentially a prosified version of a

reliable sources, every last one of them simply mentions his name briefly within coverage of other topics and thus fails to constitute sufficiently substantive coverage of him (as in the kind where he is the subject). The sources would support an article about the company he leads, in which his name could appear unlinked, but they do not support a standalone biography of him. So it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

comment Sorry, but have you tried to find sources before your nomination, nominator? I can find quite a few. For example [51][52]@Bearcat:--114.81.255.41 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. Nothing but spam, and no substantial coverage. The two links provided by 114.81.255.41 don't mention his name in Latin letters, and when I search for his name 俞永福 in the text, I get lots of results — but they're all parts of words, not freestanding names. As far as I can see, it's as if we were searching for someone named Black and claimed that we were getting lots of coverage about the guy in articles about blacksmithing and blackmail. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted. See WP:NPA] 123.121.206.13 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised and somewhat offended that my comment was deleted by Nyttend. If you check the editing history, you will see that it was highly relevant to the discussion. Here it is again without any reference to Nyttend: The grandparent comment is false. Both of those links are absolutely about Yu Yongfu, the UCWeb chairman and CEO. Even translation software like Google Translate translates both of the linked articles well enough that it's very clear that they are about the article subject. "俞永福" is not even part of any word in Chinese. 111.206.190.220 (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (the same person as the parent deleted comment, but not the same person as the other deleted comment, which also wasn't a personal attack)[reply]
What gets a person into Wikipedia is not the assertion of importance, but the quality of
reliable sourcing that you can provide to support the assertion of importance. The UCWeb article was speedied for being a copyright infringement, because it was copied and pasted directly from somewhere else, and this article is not sourced to any substantive coverage of Yu Yongfu himself, but merely to articles which happen to mention his name strictly in passing. That doesn't mean that either the company or him as a person can never have articles on Wikipedia — but the onus is on you to ensure that you're following Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules when you try to write one, and not on Wikipedia to keep any version which violates those rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, that's why, in support of the notability claim, the first source cited above is an in-depth profile by the
reliable source similar to the The New York Times or The Times. That, along with the other Chinese coverage, makes him notable.  Philg88 ♦talk 17:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can only go by the Google translation of this article, but by our usual standards this is puffery wherever published. PD is certainly reliable for many purposes, but if this is typical, it may not be for BLP of entrepreneurs. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth coverage in other sources does exist.([53][54]) He is also discussed in this magazine. (114.81.255.*)@DGG:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Yu Yong has a claim to notability, CEO of large corporation, but I should point out that mention is not significant coverage. The magazine listed by 180.172.239.231 is not in depth coverage, just a mere mention. The other two may possibly be reliable sources, but the Sina source is a republisher, and it is hard to tell. The fact that they both read like "resumes" does not instill confidence that they are reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the FT source[1] indicates him as a major player to watch (it's a full-blown profile - significant coverage), and the article in its current form does not look puffy to me. He's clearly a notable player in Chinese tech, and its mobile industry, which is the biggest in the world, and, although my Chinese isn't good enough to read the relevant Chinese sources, there are clearly plenty of them, as there are in specialist tech publications in English. They're also headlining articles about *him* - not about his business. A general note: we don't, I think, cover China particularly well, and I think any 36yo in Silicon Valley who'd built a company to that size and managed that sort of buyout would be included. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STS Love

STS Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rather incoherent article about a (not yet open?) Russian TV channel. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apart from failing notability, we have a lack of language competence here.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Having seen the hustle at ANI). The proper name is actually "CTC Love", and it is a part of the CTC Media group. Its startup was noted in the US, at
Halia Pavliva (Jan 30, 2014). "Love Channel Set to Spur CTC in Race for Female Viewers". Bloomberg.com.
but it's already covered in our
No such user (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as not notable. While it's apparently really a channel, which would normally counsel redirecting, this is an unlikely redirect. The correct one would be CTC Love, not STS Love (as for some reason that eludes me, the Cyrillic Es in the company's name is romanized as C). While we could still use it as a redirect from an alternate romanization scheme... the fact that this was created by a now-blocked hoaxer and sockpuppeteer makes me conclude that there's nothing of value here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webdesign international festival

Webdesign international festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2008. Sole link is dead. Not notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Olympia

Bikini Olympia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Following a suggestion made by MrX in this discussion). No indication of notability in the article as it stands, one event in a weekend with many; the only source is self-published by Joe Weider's business. News and book searches get no useful hits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding the article can continue on its talk page if desired. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Harbor Church

Harbor Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to lack the significant coverage needed to meet

WP:ORG significant coverage still must be demonstrated. I can't find any mention of this organization in news archive searches. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Request for clarification. The article states that this church is part of the Old Harbor Historic District, which is registered in the NRHP. However, it is unclear to me whether the current building is actually one of the buildings of "special historic and architectural value" listed in the inventory of the NRHP nomination form. (I do see references in that inventory to the former site of an earlier building for this congregation, and to the Adrian Hotel which apparently served as the temporary home of the congregation.) [55] If it is, then at minimum this content (or at least some portion of it) would belong in the article about the historic district. If it isn't, then the notability of the building is in doubt, although some content about the history of the congregation and its buildings might still be appropriate in the historic district article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
National Register of Historic Places - The current church is the former Adrian Hotel, which is no longer a hotel. The church has met in the former Adrian Hotel since 1944 though a sanctuary was built in 1952. The hotel and church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places under Old Port Historic District in New Shoreham, RI. The 1974 nomination form lists Adrian Hotel and Harbor Church in Part 25 under Spring Street though it has a 21 Water Street address. This is included in the Wikipedia article.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more relevant to combine this article with the Old Harbor Historic District article and expand on said article to include information about all the structures listed on its record [56] Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding correctly, the church is not on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual building, but it's in the district which is. If that's correct then I think Steve Lux, Jr.'s suggestion makes sense. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Tchaliburton. I went through the register for Rhode Island in great detail and verified this in the nomination form here [57]. I added a full listing of all the properties on the district article page. This article page does not seem necessary. I believe the information in the current article should be used on the district article page. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This link has the Old Harbor Historic District individual listings: [2]Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn, no it doesn't. The file lists all 42 properties as one group. Essentially, the listing on the National Historic Register is for the "district" of properties, not the individual properties themselves. If that were the case, there would be an individual listing for each of the properties, which there is not. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NRHP register:

Spring Street:
Property 25 (intersection of Spring Street and Water Street, 21 Water Street): Adrian Hotel First Baptist Church (Harbor Church), 1886
Property 26: Hotel Manisses, 1882,
etc.}}Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hathorn, I know what the file says. The file lists the properties, as you just showed, as I have included the complete list on the Old Harbor Historic District article page. These individual properties are not listed in the NRHP, but only as a group. Therefore, your page should be merged with the district page and the Harbor Church page should be deleted as it does not constitute having its own article. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Billy Hathorn. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, per Steve Lux, Jr.. Non-notable. The article currently conflates and confuses the entirely uninteresting religious institution (really, who cares what the parson's wife's name is?), in its fifth or sixth premises, with the structure of the Adrian Hotel, which appears to be of some conservation interest though not enough to justify a separate listing by the NRHP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has a listing of locations on the National Register of Historic Places. Not all have their own articles. Here is a part of the listing of, for example, Coconino County, Arizona, where there are some red links implying that they may be eligible for their own articles. I didn't notice any only in black print. Here are three red and two blue listings:

Current listings

[3] Name on the Register Image Date listed[4] Location City or town Description
1
1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site
1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site
1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site
 April 22, 2014
(#14000280) 		Near the confluence of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River
36°10′30″N 111°50′00″W / 36.175°N 111.833333°W / 36.175; -111.833333 (1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site) 		Grand Canyon National Park
2 Abandoned Route 66, Ash Fork Hill Upload image May 19, 1989
(#89000380) 		North of Interstate 40 between Ash Fork and Williams
35°13′10″N 112°21′39″W / 35.219444°N 112.360833°W / 35.219444; -112.360833 (Abandoned Route 66, Ash Fork Hill) 		Ash Fork
3 Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1921) Upload image May 19, 1989
(#89000377) 		West of Parks
35°15′36″N 111°57′19″W / 35.26°N 111.955278°W / 35.26; -111.955278 (Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1921)) 		Parks
4 Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1931) Upload image May 19, 1989
(#89000378) 		East of Parks
35°15′35″N 111°56′43″W / 35.259722°N 111.945278°W / 35.259722; -111.945278 (Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1931)) 		Parks
5
Horace M. Albright Training Center
 		Upload image September 13, 2013
(#13000784) 		Albright Ave. & Center Rd.
35°58′41″N 111°59′26″W / 35.978006°N 111.990509°W / 35.978006; -111.990509 (Horace M. Albright Training Center) 		Grand Canyon National Park

Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4156464c-1fe5-11e3-8861-00144feab7de.html#axzz3AcSsPnuo
  2. ^ "Nomination form, National Register of Historic Places, Section 25 (Spring Street)" (PDF). preservation.ri.gov. May 8, 1974. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  3. ^ Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  4. ^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
Billy Hathorn, wrong. Red links do not mean that something is eligible for its own article. It means that someone linked it to a non-existant article page, such as JC Car Rentals. Just because I linked to a non-existant article page, does not mean that JC Car Rentals should ever have an article page in an encyclopedia. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If JC Car Rentals is an historic place on the register, wouldn't it qualify for a Wikipedia article? Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing JC Car Rentals. We are discussing the fact that the red links do not justify having a separate article. But for the sake of argument, yes, essentially, if JC Car Rentals was listed on the historic register then it may have its own article. But the fact is, Harbor Church is not listed on the historic register. The only tie to the church is that the Adrian Hotel building is in the DISTRICT NRHP listing. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bolt

Bobby Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hockey player who fails

WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Bathe

Landon Bathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hockey player who fails

WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on your issue with the sources in relation to
WP:GNG? Tchaliburton (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I felt that the coverage was the usual reporting of a local athlete that is common. Jakejr (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. These stories are not routine coverage of a local athlete. There are in-depth pieces about his hockey career and separate profiles about him as a referee. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Tchaliburton. Sources are suffice to meet GNG. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most of the significant coverage on Highbeam is from the Portland Press Herald, so that basically counts as one source. But there is also coverage in the Stockton Record. And minor coverage elsewhere. So I think this just gets over the GNG bar. In any case, even if he is not notable enough for a standalone article the sourceable text should be merged with Frank Bathe, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm uncertain, but leaning keep based on Rlendog's very good analysis. At the same time -- though not an AfD issue -- I would think that when creating articles like this it is generally good practice to have supporting refs; this article, though it has ELs, is lacking in refs, which is the sort of thing that attracts AfD nominations. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

South African Education and Environment Project

South African Education and Environment Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2009, this reads like a promotional article. I don't believe that this organisation is notable. An orphan article, nothing reaches here Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a worthy charitable non-profit that has persisted for a long time. In paywalled newspaper database, i find "In Service: Native of city discovered his life's mission in a changing South Africa" Author: O'Donnell, Lisa, in Winston-Salem Journal (NC). 08/17/2008. This is a full-on article about the organization and what it does, keying off the story of a North Carolina lawyer Norton Tennille who quit his practice to go to Cape Town, South Africa, and organize the nonprofit. It was first called the South African Environment Project, and later renamed to the South African Education and Environment Project, and it "focuses mostly on education programs for pre-school children and high-school students in Cape Town." Later in the longish article: "Norton Tennille's organization, SAEP, reaches children on several fronts. At the high-school level, SAEP sponsors poetry workshops and debate teams, supplies science and math tutors, helps publish school newspapers and provides training in computers and information technology. Among other programs, it also provides "Gap Year" internships for recent high-school graduates. The interns in the program learn leadership skills, volunteer in the community and take some academic courses to prepare them for college and their careers. Many of the volunteers who help run the programs are American college students. Tennille has used his contacts here to form partnerships with many universities including UNC Chapel Hill, Duke and Yale. Students from the University of Cape Town also serve as tutors and mentors in various programs. Tennille's organization has a Winston-Salem flavor. Winston-Salem residents and natives sit on its various boards." and it continues. This is significant coverage about the founder and the organization.
Another news article about it is: "South Africa visit a culture shock" by KILMENY ADIE in Illawarra Mercury. 11/27/2001.
--doncram 03:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The only section with references is the lede, so the major problem with this article is WP:V. 
    The topic has received attention from the world at large over a period of time.  Here is another ref, this one from the United Kingdom.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International Delphic Council. Consensus exists that there is a lack of notability, ATD prefers redirect to delete, no arguments advanced against the redirect and one advanced toward it. j⚛e deckertalk 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Christian B. Kirsch

J. Christian B. Kirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this person might have enough

conflict of interest if you compare that username to the topic's primary claim of notability. As always, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if good sourcing shows up before close, but he's not entitled to keep a BLP, especially one that he wrote himself, on Wikipedia in an unreferenced state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 17:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gel bracelet. (Thanks Mabalu for already completing it.) Daniel (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MY Single Band

MY Single Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an advertising article for a flash-in-the-pan product which is no longer in existence. I would argue that this fails notability as all the citations are from about a single week last Autumn and there's no other references since; although notability is not temporary, I don't believe these articles constitute significant coverage. Morgana Fiolett 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) to Gel bracelet. This is actually a quite well-sourced article. Even if the trend was short-lived, it relates directly to the sex bracelet section on Gel bracelet and demonstrates an instance where such wristbands were deliberately intended to reflect the person's relationship status and availability. I don't think it should be deleted outright. Mabalu (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiratan Iorio

Ubiratan Iorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG. Launchballer 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (

♔ 07:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Vijay filmography

Vijay filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what to make of this. I assume this ties into Vijay, but there is no lead, it is all tables, very little context. Found when patrolling the end of the NewPages log. There are some sources although entire sections are unsourced. The amount of tables and listing without context seems just overkill. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: It was moved from Vijay (actor). For some reason, the material was put back. So either Delete as redundant or Keep and remove duplicate content from parent. --NeilN talk to me 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it can't stay in the main article if it must stay and there is no context in the separate article here, which should be deleted. Thanks for the heads up, I didn't check all the history, just knew this was a mess. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis that the article is complete mess but I'm also of the view that the parent article has become very lengthy. So it should be edited to look better rather than deleting the page. Mr RD 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly needs work, but it seems like a typical break-off article for someone who's notability is not in question and parent article is lengthy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

♔ 07:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bruce vs. Frankenstein

Bruce vs. Frankenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film has not entered production. Koala15 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

WP:NFF. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e deckertalk 00:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rap opera

Rap opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic easily fails

WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I recently rewrote Rock opera, and I came across references to rap operas, which are very briefly discussed in that article. For evidence of further coverage, I found this article at the New Statesman and this article at Star-News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by NRP. Bearian (talk)
  • Keep. Evidently there are rap opera companies, artists who describe their genre as "rap opera", and pages devoted to rap opera lyrics. Who knew? Not I, till I did some cursory googling. The many reviews of specific rap operas may include descriptions of the genre. Here's a book, The Ringtone Dialectic: Economy and Cultural Form (MIT Press), that gives some definition of the genre. My impression, though, is that the article will be stubbish. Everybody seems to know what a rap opera is and to throw the label around, but like many contemporary forms of expression, nobody's felt the need to pin it down as a critical genre. It may be that at present the article takes shape as an introduction to a list of notable rap operas. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arktis

Arktis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant self promotion. Conflict of interest. Article has been speedily deleted twice, and is being recreated by one of the company's senior officials. No evidence of notability. Just another clothing manufacturer. If this fails AFD can an admin salt it to prevent future recreation. Dmol (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' COI: The article appears to be written by William Jarret, who is listed as the Lead Designer for the company in the article. The author hasn't shown this company is Notable: The sources are a couple single pages of Raider magazine (not available online to verify if these are ads placed by the company or articles discussing the company at length), another wiki site and a blog post showing a single image obviously created by the company announcing an order. Stesmo (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett is not only their "lead designer", he is also their marketing guy... at least according to a portion of the article that was just deleted by an IP editor that came on Wikipedia solely to delete the two lines mentioning Jarrett in the article. While this version of the article does strip most (not all) of the promo-y material that was in previous versions, the current sourcing on it is dubious in meeting
our guidelines for the audience requirements of establishing notability for organizations, relying heavily on a single magazine. I also don't know whether the magazine Raider is an independent source, or whether it's a magazine which Arktis advertises heavily in; we do not seem to have an article on this magazine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. If anyone wants to merge or transwiki the content, they can do so at their choosing from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Lantau Road

South Lantau Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per

not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "dePRODed. I believe that the article can be improved and the notability can be established. AfD would be more appropriate than PROD." However, no additional references or sources were added to the article thus the notability issue remains unresolved. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nature of "substantial" coverage is inherently a subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus (if not a unanimous one) that the provided sources are good enough in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Road

Austin Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per

not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, not additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' have been added thus the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.
In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. Look in my contributions log and you'll see these nominations are a trivial section.
Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.
Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there?
Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Austin Road) has been created 9 years ago. It had 63 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased. NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides the very in-depth source indicated by Arxiloxos [62], there's also more I've found in just a few seconds.[63] Yes, this nom has lately been making several unhelpful AfDs of almost every Hong Kong street article they come across when time and effort would be better served improving existing articles. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"someone else's mess" is certainly a very personal opinion. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument to delete because John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to see the article deleted, which is why my !vote is to redirect it to a more suitable location. Geographic and other adjunct travel details belong in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Who the road is named after and other relevant historical details can be covered in a single paragraph in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apliu Street

Apliu Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per

not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag remove with the comment, "substantial coverage exists, inappropriate for prod." However, no new references or links to said 'substantial coverage' were added to the article so the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Enough with this barrage of thoughtless AfDs. There are certainly some HK streets that do not deserve coverage, but it has become clear there is no effort to distinguish between the notable and the non-notable. Apliu Street is perhaps the most famous street in Sham Shui Po. Many Hong Kong articles are poorly referenced and neglected, because generally these subjects get more attention on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have slowly been working to improve referencing on Hong Kong subjects over the past year and many articles which were long stubs have recently been improved by the community. Wholesale deletion is not the answer. Citobun (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If any established editor wants the content to fork certain sports (including The-Pope), then feel free to post on my talk page and I'll send you the content from the deleted article for the sports in question. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople who died during their careers

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is an incomprehensible melting pot and it is unmanageable Sismarinho (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While not inherently non-notable, the list is far too vague and indiscriminate to be of any use to a reader. I would suggest nuking and paving, then creating with a more narrow scope. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague criteria and seems like original research. Jakejr (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up/split Not a single try at maintenance? No suggestions on the discussion page, or any kind of notification beforehand? Just "Bwah, I don't like it"? Sry, I fail to detect the good faith in calling something "unmanageable" that you haven't tried to manage in the first place. Removing all those non-notable college athletes would be a good start. While this article certainly is a mess in its current state, I think the loss of useful information would weigh in heavily. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the criteria for being on this list are indiscriminate and vague. Someone can get on the list if they "could still have been active", but that seems like it would necessarily be a judgment call. There's also the criteria about officially retiring, but that's not as cut-and-dry as it seems. Some players don't "officially" retire for years, and many never make a official announcement. Additionally, Lou Gehrig did offically retire, so doesn't that mean the criteria say he shouldn't be included? Why are soccer players who died while actually playing soccer on a separate list? The article says that it's because there's a lot of them, but there are a lot of soccer deaths under "car accident" too, and they're not on a separate list. Why are coaches included for some sports, but not others? Why are baseball umpires included but referees in other sports not? If the list is meant to be athletes only, shouldn't it say that? I do agree with the others that a list of smaller scope such as List of sportspeople who died while competing could work. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fork As most of the delete !votes here are "too vague", can I suggest that individual sports projects are notified of this AFD, in case they want to rescue/fork their list into a more clearly defined list, as I intend to do with cricket and Australian football. When you are talking about individual sports, it is a lot easier to tightly define what "still competing" means than trying make rules that adequately cover all sports. The-Pope (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly you people really make me sick with the way you talk about people. The majority of these people died and this is the only way they will be remembered on a larger scale, and you have the nerve to talk about "not important" and "not notable" college athletes? Here's a little newsflash for you: ALL college athletes who die are notable. ALL athletes who die at any level are notable. They trained their whole lives to do what they do and they had it taken away from them along with any chance of having the long life you all take for granted simply by a cruel act of fate. They gave up their lives to be public figures and gave everything they had for the name on the back of their jersey. Get some respect.
I have read this list before. All of it. It deserves to exist because these people deserve to be remembered and how dare you try to take that away from them just because you don't like the way the page looks. Things like this are exactly why I'm starting to really dislike Wikipedia.24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_August_7&oldid=1142629638"